While he wages a culture war on Christians, the president tells Americans not to worry about global Islam.

Last week Barack Obama marked the beginning of Ramadan by saying to Muslims that the "United States continues to stand with those who seek the chance to decide their own destiny, to live free from fear and violence, and to practice their faith freely." While he undercuts Christianity at home -- under his Obamacare abortifacient/contraceptive mandate, resistant Catholic and Protestant schools, hospitals, and charities will soon face crushing fines -- he never fails to tout Islam abroad.

President Barack Obama, speaking to the National Urban League on Wednesday evening, sounded a call for gun control--and revealed his apparent ignorance about the U.S. military in the process. Obama told the audience that "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals." However, the U.S. military does not generally use the AK-47, a weapon originally developed in the Soviet Union that was subsequently adopted by many other communist states. The AK-47 also became the weapon of choice for guerilla armies and terrorist groups.

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." --George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." --James Madison, Federalist No. 46, 1788

By Douglas V. Gibbs

While the leftists grow government by allowing people to live off of other people through entitlements, and government grows into something far worse than the founders ever intended, the reality is that when people refuse to do as they are told in the face of tyranny the government resorts to violence. It is that reality that was behind the writing of the 2nd Amendment. The Founding Fathers feared the government having a standing army because the federal government may use that army against the people. That is why in Article I, Section 8 the army has to be funded every two years. That is also why the Second Amendment instructs the federal government that it cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way. The right to keep and bear arms by the people is for the purpose of protecting the people from a tyrannical government system.

Liberals ask, "So, Doug, does that mean you are willing to shoot and kill federal employees?"

My answer is, "At what point was it okay for the Germans to stand up to the Nazis? Or were they supposed to worry about the fact that they were going to stand up against government employees?"

The Germans never did, so Hitler continued his reign of terror.

If such tyranny comes to the United States, it is our duty as Americans to bring such a regime down, especially if they get to the point where they begin to push their totalitarianism through violence against the populace.

Recently, in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, Michael Moore said, "I think, first of all this must seem odd to people in other countries that we view our Constitution as if it was written by God himself. That it was somehow, through some sort of divine intervention or whatever, it was etched in stone like Moses and the tablets. And because what they thought was right in 1776 to 1789, that is the way we have to live today in the 21st century. I mean, we wouldn't go to a doctor and have him put leeches on us to suck the blood out of us because that would cure us, that's what they did, you know, a 150 years ago. We've kind of evolved."

Obviously, Michael Moore does not have a clue regarding what the Constitution is all about. Like most liberals, he sees it as an obstacle that should be tossed aside so that a strong central government can reign supreme, controlling the States and the people. . . with only the best of intentions of course.

Unlike leaches being used in medicine (I always thought liberals like Moore were a lot like leaches), liberty never goes out of style. Freedom is not old hat.

The United States Constitution is not some magical document that was handed to the founders by God, but there is no doubt that divine providence was involved. Even Ben Franklin thought that to be a reality.

That said, to understand the Constitution is to love it, and Moore does not.

The Constitution was written for the sole purpose of creating the federal government because the previous government under the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough. However, fearing that the government would grow into a tyrannical beast, and in the interest of protecting State sovereignty, the authorities granted to the federal government were limited and few. Only powers needed for protecting and preserving the union were granted.

If evolution, according to Michael Moore, is instituting destructive socialist policies that have failed over and over again, while betraying the law of the land, I am perfectly willing to be a part of the movement to return this nation to the old ways of the Constitution. If Michael Moore doesn't like it, I will be glad to help him pack.

Monday, July 30, 2012

James Stewart, the 65-year-old raw "milk man" and founder of Rawesome Foods, was assaulted near his home today by three armed men driving unmarked luxury vehicles with no license plates. Carrying firearms on their hips and dressed in gangster-style street clothes, Satanic T-shirt imagery and tattoos, they claimed to be making an "arrest" and verbally assaulted James, sprayed pepper spray in his face, then forced his head against a car and screamed, according to witnesses, "You better listen to me or you're gonna have a bad f*ckin' day!"

James Stewart's cell phone was on the entire time, and a phone witness told NaturalNews the arrest was conducted "Nazi style." Meanwhile, James was screaming to anyone who would listen, "HELP ME! HELP ME! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO ME?"

James was wanted on $130,000 in bail by Ventura County, which had originally put him on $1 million bail -- an amount usually reserved for murderers, rapists or serial killers. James, accused of selling "unpasteurized milk" through Rawesome Foods, was made the target of an FDA-funded and politically motivated attempt to destroy the raw milk industry in California. He has been charged with financial crimes by Ventura County even though there is literally no legitimate evidence whatsoever linking James to any such crimes, and the entire case is already in the process of being unraveled.

In the Ventura case, there is no crime, no evidence, and not even any justifiable reason to arrest James and put him on bail in the first place! The entire thing was utterly fabricated as a publicity stunt to attempt to intimidate would-be raw milk producers.

RUSH: We have on the phone the CEO of Buckyballs, a guy from New York named Craig Zucker. Mr. Zucker, welcome to the program. Great to have you here.BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

ZUCKER: Thanks a lot, Rush.

RUSH: You have had your product banned?

ZUCKER: The Consumer Product Safety Commission has begun a process to ban our product and magnets in general. It has not been banned yet.

RUSH: Okay, not yet. Not yet.

ZUCKER: Not yet.

RUSH: But you're on the way. What's the problem they've got, first with magnets, and then we'll get to yours. What's their problem with magnets?

ZUCKER: I guess over the past couple years they've seen a couple of children who have gotten their hands on an adult product, they've ingested the product. Twelve children over the past three years have ingested our product out of two-and-a-half million units sold, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission believes that now all magnets should be taken off the market. They should be banned and recalled due to these 12 incidents.

RUSH: Even refrigerator magnets that remind people to shut the door and stuff like that?

ZUCKER: Not those kind. The products that they're looking at are more of the products like Buckyballs and Buckycubes.

RUSH: How big is a Buckyball?

ZUCKER: They're about five millimeters. Each one's about the size of a BB and they come in packs of, you know, 125 or 216.

RUSH: Right.

ZUCKER: They're marketed and sold as adult stress relievers, desk toys, things to build, create structures out of, and have been sold to adults for nearly three years now. They've become probably one of the best-selling adult gift product in the specialty gift industry the past three years.

RUSH: And because of a minuscule percentage of children misusing the product, now they want to ban whole thing?

Yes, it is better for a child to be breast fed than to be bottle fed. My wife breast fed both of our children. My son's wife is a working mother and used bottles. My daughter was unable to breast feed for medical reasons, but bottle fed her pumped breast milk to her babies.

Breast feeding, like anything else, has to be a choice. It is disgusting that liberal lunatic New York Mayor Bloomberg has now even gotten to the point that he wants to force women to breast feed, whether they like it, or not.

Bloomberg believes government should be able to force you to do anything they want because the liberal ruling elite somehow knows better than you what choices to make. In the case of breast milk, Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast feed.

These are not mere words, either. beginning on September 3, New York City under the demand by Bloomberg will start keeping tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use.

They are claiming they are not denying mothers formula if they wish to use it. They are just making it harder to get the formula by keeping infant formula in out-of-the-way secure storerooms or in locked boxes like those used to dispense and track medications.

And, with each bottle a mother requests and receives, she’ll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead.

I am wondering how long before they start arresting mothers who use formula.

“It’s the patient’s choice,” said Allison Walsh, of Beth Israel Medical Center. “But it’s our job to educate them on the best option.”

Fine, make a recommendation, but this kind of totalitarian nanny-state crap is beyond acceptable. Freedom means choice, and choice means that individuals can decide for themselves. This formula lockdown crap is ridiculous.

What's next? Are they going to outlaw large sodas?

Ooops, too late. They did that too.

What is even crazier about this is that these same liberals who are so concerned about the health of babies in regards to breast feeding them, also generally support the slaughter of the unborn through abortion.

Islam doesn't even recognize Israel's sovereignty, much less that Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish State. Islam claims holy attachment to Jerusalem as well, and claims the city should be the capital of a Palestinian State. Mitt Romney recently spent some time in Israel, and while he was there, and while Barack Obama was signing the U.S.-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney revealed that the White House was in agreement with Islam by being unable, or unwilling, to state the capital of Israel.

He was asked straightforwardly by a reporter “What city does this Administration consider to be the capital of Israel? Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?”

One reporter even offered Carney a choice of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Carney chose neither, falling back on “You know the answer to that.”

Like the Muslim World, Obama's White House does not recognize Israel. They have continuously turned their back on the country, and the fact that the administration parrots the Muslim world by not recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is no surprise. Like all good liberals, however, they will also not come out with the truth. They must hide their real agenda. They must hide the fact that they are against Israel, and are in support of Islam.

"It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution." --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the Virginia Query 19, 1781

"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." --Samuel Adams"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

By Douglas V. Gibbs

There is a direct relation between freedom and a country that remains a moral and religious nation. Not religion in the sense of denominations, but religious in the sense of adherence to the biblical principles of morality.

America has been prosperous because America has been good. The moral compass of Americans has always centered upon God's laws, and doing what is moral and right. However, the definition of morality has been changed to mean things it was never meant to mean before. The government has inserted itself into the conversation, and the result has been disastrous.

At the time of the founding of this nation the European mindset was all about luxury, indolence, amusement, and pleasure. In the British Colonies, from the very beginning, to survive one had to be hard-working, self-reliant, industrious, frugal, moral, personally responsible, and honest. These virtuous character traits existed partially due to the fact that the people in America had to struggle to survive in the beginning, making them dependent upon nobody else. Another reason was because unlike Europeans, Americans owned property.

When a person owns private possessions that person maintains more human rights. The ability to own property is a right, and the maintenance of that right opens up the rights to sell, trade, mortgage, give freely, bequeath, or do none of the above. An individual who enjoys the full rights of property ownership are then more apt to respect the property of others, and in some cases may even pursue the ownership of more property.

Property ownership, and the pursuit of financial gain through the free market, encourages a strong economy, and also encourages public virtue. When the concept of individualism is above the concept of the community, the community benefits because the individual's success creates jobs, moves goods and services, and increase the flow of capital through the community. The concept of putting the village first actually hinders production and the opportunity to succeed.

When the means of production is given to the government, personal rights become secondary, and all property rights fall under the control of the government. This, in turn, enables the government to dictate to the people what is virtuous and moral, while taking away the very freedoms that made them successful individuals.

As a moral people, we recognize the need to help the needy. Biblical principles instruct us to be giving, and loving. Jesus Christ supported helping the poor, but he encouraged that activity by individuals through their own voluntary decisions, not by government.

When giving to the poor is fueled by our personal morality, it encourages the recipients to build themselves up so that they can do the same for others. This is called "charity." When government provides entitlement programs, claiming that they are doing it for the purpose of taking care of the poor, in reality it is legal plunder, where the government forces funds from the successful and redistributes it to the lower classes. The poor, then, rather than working to get out of poverty, begin to view the entitlements as simply a way of life, become dependent upon the government gifts, and loses the ability to take care of themselves. Then, the politicians use the entitlements as a tool to stay in power, buying the votes of the recipients by simply saying that their opponents will take the entitlements away should they opposition be elected.

This is why the war on poverty has been such a failure. However, fighting poverty was never the intention. The democrats use entitlements not to help the poor, but to guarantee they have a loyal constituency who will vote for the democrats in perpetuity.

A lack of virtue has brought about these mechanisms that, though sold as "the right thing to do," are in reality slavery to the federal government, and a vote buying gimmick by the democrats.

Through virtue a society is successful. Morality is then the key to freedom. When one is willing to forfeit the virtue of individuality for the gift of entitlement, they trade freedom for slavery.

George Washington declared in his farewell address:

Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that men claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens... Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. (Padover, The Washington Papers, pp. 318-19.)

The destruction of the family and marriage, removing prayer from schools, and inserting debauchery into our society has been the liberal progressive's way of killing morality, for how can one be willing to be a slave to the government if they are morally bound to self-reliance and personal responsibility?

Like a disease in our body, the lack of morality in a society decays the community, and ultimately destroys the ability of the society to think and do for itself. The ruling elite then take advantage, and freedom becomes nothing more than a memory.

Independence is hard work. Individuality is difficult to fight for. Self-discipline, it seems, is needed to remain virtuous. So, we sometimes are easily tempted by the poisoned apple offered by government.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and righteous people and is wholly inadequate to govern any other. As righteousness struggles, and virtue is all but dead, in the world today, it is no wonder our Constitution is being trampled upon.

If we are not willing to adhere to simple moral standards given to us by God, what makes anyone thing we will be willing to abide by the political standards provided by the Constitution?

That said, I am an optimist. I believe this can be turned around. Be it by revelation, revival, or revolution, this will get turned around. Deep down we are a virtuous and moral people, and we are rising up. We are gaining the courage to stand up to the onslaught of liberal progressive madness, and we do have the courage to be involved.

We must ask ourselves, however, some important questions. Do we have enough time? Do we have the resolve to keep it up? Are we willing to vote in virtuous and moral leaders, and then not become complacent, but hold their feet to the fire too?

The answers to those questions will determine whether America lives or dies during this very serious test we are currently experiencing.

The USS Somerset — the last of three Navy ships named for 9/11 attack sites — was christened Saturday in honor of the passengers and crew of the plane that crashed before terrorists could reach their intended target.

Passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 stormed the cockpit and thwarted an attack on Washington, but the plane crashed in Somerset County, Pa., killing all 40 passengers and crew members.

"The men and women of Flight 93 ... thought they were going to San Francisco to work, to play, to learn; to live their lives in peace while others guarded them," said Navy Rear Adm. David Lewis. "Instead they found themselves in a war, on the front lines, in the opening battle. It was a new kind of war, one with new rules, maybe no rules at all. They had no preparation, no training, no guidance.

Last week a commenter on Political Pistachio left a message saying that we should pray to God to end the life of Aurora Batman theater shooter James Holmes so that he doesn't hurt anyone else. The comment was anonymous, and since I moderate, it was disapproved.

Either the commenter does not understand the faith of Jesus Christ, or the comment was left by a person that opposes faith and the comment was meant to be a piece of bait dangling on a vicious hook.

What James Holmes did was horrible. Under man's laws he should either rot in jail for life, or face the death penalty (I am figuring on a death sentence). When it comes to the spiritual realm, however, I don't pray for his death, but for his repentance. I pray that deep in his tortured soul the truth becomes apparent, and he drops to his knees in repentance to God. Only an awesome God has the kind of mercy needed to forgive Holmes his transgressions.

"[T]he right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave." --John Adams

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The liberal agenda is nothing new. It is the same old crap dished out by Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, Jean Jacques Rouseau, and Alexander Hamilton. Some of the ingredients may be different, and the names of the movement has changed a number of times, but liberal, progressive, Marxist, socialist, mercantilist, communist, utopianism is all the same be it through the lens of the Jacobins in France or the hard left liberal democrats of today's United States of America.

And because it is the same old crap, the hard left liberals have become quite predictable - until Obama. Unlike his leftist predecessors, he is even more radical, and is a raging narcissist. The unpredictability of Obama, however, is not in what he is doing, but the degree in which he is willing to go. We are used to the left being careful on how much socialism they inject into the American system. The incremental nature of their agenda is what has made it work its damage on our system. Little by little they have been feeding us poison, and the average American normally fails to detect it.

Barack Obama has jumped the shark. He has decided America is ready for the final steps toward a system the Founding Fathers meant for us to avoid.

What today's democrats are shoveling is no different than the crap the progressives were pushing in the 1930s. However, they now believe they can get away with a lot more, and in the process has revealed themselves as the fascist liberal progressives that they are. The problem is that some of the people are still buying this crap, which may make the fight to stop it all the more difficult.

Whenever the liberals are ready to push a policy, they have to lie to get it implemented. Once it is implemented they claim the people like it, and then accuse their opposition of trying to take it away. It doesn't matter if the policy is damaging to our system. It is all about emotion. The policy makes them feel good about themselves, and they push it as something that is a gift from the government - regardless of the tyrannical nature of the policy, or the unconstitutionality of it.

Never mind that the policies they push have failed in history over and over again. Never mind that Europe is collapsing over the fact that they have had the policies Obama is pursuing for decades. Never mind that socialized medicine, and the rest of the entitlements offered, are unsustainable, and always ultimately brings societies to their knees. It is not about if the policies work. It is about the emotion, the good intentions, and of course the governmental power.

This is generally a center-right country, and the liberal left can't win on their policies, so they hide them - until the democrats begin to believe that maybe the country has moved to the left. Then, as they believe the political winds are blowing in their direction, the truth begins to come out, and Americans run from the tyranny. The liberal left is then forced to avoid discussing the things they believe, often denying that they believe them at all.

Since the policies of the left are in reality very unpopular, liberals go to incredible lengths to manipulate the political arena into their favor. They use the mainstream media so that they can guide news stories in their favor. They have infiltrated and taken over our educational system so that they can teach kids liberal propaganda before they’re old enough to know better. Like Alexander Hamilton, they use the judiciary to usurp the Constitution, using case law as a way of supporting their liberal ideological goals. Even the Left’s support of illegal immigration is rooted in the desire to bring in millions of poor people from socialist countries who are more likely to vote Democratic. If they can’t convince the American voters they’re right, then they’ll just bring in some new voters.

An incredible double standard is in play when dealing with liberals, as well. They do all they can to disrupt conservative speeches, and they try to drive conservative talk radio hosts off the air with things like the Fairness Doctrine, but if any non-liberal were to do the same to the left, they are labeled racist, haters, and anything else these people can muster.

George W. Bush was called a war criminal, was routinely compared to Hitler, and a number of leftists continuously called for his assassination. However, if anyone dares to criticize Obama, the person is labeled as being racist, and dangerous. How dare they not respect the office of the presidency, we are told.

Indeed, the liberal left stops at nothing to gain power. In Canada the leftists are even going to the point of sending conservatives to trial for hate crimes because they’ve dared to criticize Islam, or speak in a politically incorrect manner.

On this site a commenter named Yellow Flag actually wrote that my site should be shut down for my conservative commentary.

They only believe in freedom of speech if you agree with them, apparently.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

The second clause of Article VI. of the United States Constitution reads: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

The Obama administration is poised to sign a number of draconian treaties offered by the international leftists of the United Nations. There is a concern because of the unconstitutional nature of these treaties. The treaties, of which the globalists are claiming are loaded with good intentions, would enable international regulations over parenting, sea routes, our foreign policy, arms trade, water and energy usage, and even global governance over the use of land within the sovereign states.

Treaties can be dangerous, because as per Article VI. of the United States Constitution, like laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land.

The United States Supreme Court in the Reid v. Covert case of 1957 ruled that despite the fact the Constitution calls ratified treaties the law of the land, the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. The opinion of the court was inspired by the concept of Judicial Review, which enables the courts to "interpret" the Constitution to mean whatever they desire. The ruling, however, was not a way to protect us from bad treaties, as the supporters of the decision claimed, but was yet another nail in the coffin by the federal government in their attempt to kill the voice of the sovereign States once and for all. According to the Supreme Court, when it comes to determining the Constitutionality of a treaty, that task would fall upon the courts - a protocol that carries with it very dangerous implications should the executive branch and the judicial branch collude together for the purpose of usurping the Constitution.

Judicial Review, a concept canonized by the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, was an authority never actually expressly granted to the courts by the States, and in reality is an unconstitutional concept in the first place. Therefore, if the courts are not the final arbiters of the Constitution, and Judicial Review is simply a power grab by the courts that was not embraced by any of the Founding Fathers except maybe the statists like Alexander Hamilton, then it is clear the courts have no say over whether or not a treaty is Constitutional or not.

When breaking down the language of Article VI. one finds that treaties are not required to be Constitutional. The wording of the clause only requires that the laws passed by Congress be in pursuance of the Constitution. However, the clause also places treaties on the same level as constitutional laws passed, as well as the Constitution itself. This brings up the question, if a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, which of the two supersedes the other?

There is no clear answer to that question because the Founding Fathers did not expect it to be an issue.

To understand why the founders were not concerned with the constitutionality of treaties, we need to go back to the world of early America itself.

The American system has changed drastically since the founding of this nation. The very dynamics of our political system are so out of whack that problems are arising that were never a concern before.

During the Constitutional Convention the delegates represented the States, and in order to be ratified the States, which is the voice of the people through their local autonomous entity, had to approve of the Constitution with nine out of the thirteen States. The reason for this is because it was the States that were granting authorities to the federal government. The States held original authority over all powers, and had to relinquish some of those powers to the federal government in order for the new central government to function as they desired. The delegates, however, did not trust a central government, and so the States were tasked with serving as the final check and balance against all federal actions. In order to change the Constitution, three-fourths of the States are required to ratify it. The States were given the same power over all other workings of the federal government, through the United States Senate.

Before 1913 and the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the U.S. Senators were appointed by the State legislatures. This was so that the States could advise the federal government, and give consent to federal actions. The advise and consent power was specifically given to the Senate because the Senate served as the voice of the States in the U.S. Government. This means that it was the responsibility of representatives of the States to hear all impeachments, hear all federal appointments, and to ratify treaties.

The States, because they made the contract that formed the federal government, and because it was some of their powers being vested in the new federal government, were (and are) the final arbiters of the Constitution. That is the reason the States have the power of nullification. If the federal government passes laws outside the authorities of the Constitution, the States have the option to nullify those laws by refusing to implement them.

Since the States are the final arbiters of the Constitution, and it was the voice of the States through the U.S. Senate that was tasked with the ratification of treaties, there was no concern that treaties would be made that were in conflict with the Constitution, or that were dangerous to the concept of State sovereignty. Surely, the founders reasoned, the States would not ratify treaties that would place in jeopardy their own rights, or the important principles of limited government that were in place to protect the States from a tyrannical federal system. And even if some States were willing to instruct their appointed representatives in the Senate to vote in favor of a draconian treaty, there would never be enough because ratification of a treaty takes two-thirds of the Senators present.

Our Founding Fathers were not worried about unconstitutional treaties because the ultimate guardians of the Constitution, the States, were the ones required to ratify a treaty through the United States Senate.

Though the treaties we are faced with are insidious, the real problem is not the treaties, but the fact that we have opened the door for their ratification by continuing to allow the 17th Amendment to remain in force. Returning the U.S. Senate to the States is the way to stop this madness, for even the most liberal States are not always interested in giving up their own interests and rights to an international totalitarian regime like the United Nations.

So, The Jim Henson Company is upset that Chick-fil-A is a company that operates and promotes biblical principles, one of those principles being that marriage actually has a definition. Unfortunately, that definition does not account for man on man or girl on girl action. So, in response, for a crime against liberalism, toys featuring The Muppets will no longer be provided for the company's kid's meals.

This is, once again, a prime example of Liberalism Uber Alles from the insensitive, intolerant left. And yes, the move most certainly does show the intolerance of The Jim Henson Company. Specifically, it is intolerance directed at Christians who will not liberalize their ways. They are, after all, refusing to deal with another company solely because their beliefs are different from their own.

While it is entirely The Jim Henson Company's right to do this, it is just another window into the soulless pit of the left.

It is important to note that Chick-fil-A's refusal to adopt the left's embrace of the oxymoronic idea of "gay marriage" harms no one. Well, it might make a some effeminate males seek out a fainting couch. Some overly butch females pump their angry fists in the air. But why? Because, Heaven forbid, people don't want to give in to a nonsensical demand that homosexuals be allowed to redefine marriage so that they can wed their same sex partners?.

Any "harm" is imagined and self-inflicted. Just like it would be self-inflicted harm if I foolishly led myself to believe that I could be the starting quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers, only to be summarily rejected the opportunity based on the glaring fact that I have no ability to be such. Come to think of it, with as poor as their offensive line blocks at times, why on Earth would I want to be the starting quarterback anyway?

But here's the rub. By embracing liberalism whole hog, The Jim Henson Company actually puts itself as a competitive disadvantage. Ok, so Tickle Me Elmos will be a huge hit among the gay community this year. But what else do they get from pandering to 1%, at best, of the population?

While they no doubt feel that this is actually a blow against Chick-fil-A, it really is not. Think about it. After all, Chick-fil-A does not advertise with The Jim Henson Company. But The Jim Henson Company does advertise, or at least did, with Chick-fil-A. That means less exposure for the liberally inclined Muppets. Perhaps not a bad thing.

Chick-fil-A will have no problem finding someone else to provide toys to their popular kid's meals, no matter how much the liberals protest, shout, and threaten. That is a fact.

Plus, if Chick-fil-A wants to, they can buy advertising time in any showing of The Jim Henson Company's products on television by simply calling up the network and doing so. They never have to worry about what Kermit the Frog or Miss Piggy (perhaps Kermit's gay lover in drag?) have to say about it.

So who really loses? Of course, those who cling to liberalism and want to destroy all who will not bow down before them are the losers. But don't expect liberals to understand that, which is exactly why they always wind up failing.

Chick-fil-A will go on without The Muppets, no matter how much the left wishes it were otherwise. Now, excuse me while I take a bite of my Spicy Chicken Sandwich Delux, now with 20% less liberal whining. YUM!

================

J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.

Israel’s critics often call the security barrier protecting Israelis from West Bank terrorists an “apartheid wall,” so it’s ironic that Lebanon’s judo team asked Olympic officials to put up a barrier to block out any view of the Israeli team. So much for the spirit of sportsmanship.

Every liberal gay I have talked to supports the fact that forty years ago prayer was banned from the public school system because Christians shouldn't be cramming their religion down people's throats. . . but those homosexuals also support California's decision to make it mandatory that teachers teach gay history in a positive light because children must be taught the importance of homosexuality in our society. . . and they don't see the hypocrisy of that. . .

The gay agenda claims their free speech is being stomped on anytime a Christian shows up at a gay event carrying signs with Bible verses, and they drum those Christians out of the event. It is apparent that they expect anyone with an opposing view to be silenced.

Chick-fil-A's ownership has come out in support of traditional marriage, and the gay population, as expected, has protested, accused the company to be "homophobic" and "haters," and is calling for them to be shut down. . . but what has really happened is that Chick-fil-A's business has improved, and in fact right now sales are going through the roof.

Friday, July 27, 2012

First, like the Marxist he is, Obama gave us "You didn't build that" without government's help.

Now, he says the liberal left, through his presidency, tried their plan and it worked.

Really?

Let's see, even with their manipulations of the numbers, the unemployment rate is over eight percent (near twenty percent in reality), 88 million are out of the labor force, less than 2% GDP growth, a stagnant housing market, trillions of dollars in debt, unconstitutional executive orders, unconstitutional czars, unconstitutional regulations, a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, 8.2 million people underemployed, 45 million Americans on Food Stamps and the democrats are trying to increase that number with ads, poverty worsening. . . and this guy says his plan worked?

On what planet?

Okay, so let's see - he has said the private sector is doing fine, you didn’t build that, and now “we tried our plan, and it worked.” Talk about out of touch not just with the American People, but with reality.

The massacre in Aurora, Colorado has liberal left freaks calling for gun control, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg went so far as to say that if gun control isn't instituted, police should go on strike until it is.

Bloomberg, like most leftists, argues that the violence won't stop until the guns are off the streets, but the problem is gun control does not remove guns from the streets. . . it only takes guns away from law abiding citizens, making them targets rather than people able to defend themselves.

He said: "I would take it one step further. I don't understand why police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, 'We're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.'"

Bloomberg then backpedaled later.

“I didn’t mean literally go on strike. In fact, in New York (police) can’t go on strike. There’s a law against it," he said.

That's right, what he called for was illegal.

The thing is, the police is not there to prevent crime, and they shouldn't be. A Minority Report kind of society is one where the government controls every move of every person in the guise of protecting everyone. That is not freedom. As an individual, aside from being a means to protect against a tyrannical government, I am armed to protect myself and my home. If someone enters my house without my permission, and they are there to cause harm (or to confiscate my guns) I will fill them with holes. Period.

Are we surprised the leftists are calling for gun control?

Today, by the way, is the negotiations regarding the small arms treaty by the United Nations. . . the movement globally is already on the march.

William, Paul and James Newland and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who together own Hercules Industries, have no right to conduct their family business in a manner that comports with their Catholic faith.

The federal government can and will compel them to either surrender their business or to engage in activities the Catholic faith teaches are intrinsically immoral.

This is exactly what President Barack Obama's Justice Department told a U.S. district court in a formal filing last week.

Tonight we are going to set aside the 14th Amendment for the moment to address Treaties. . .

We meet at 6:00 pm at Faith Armory on Enterprise Circle West, Temecula.

The key to treaties goes back to State sovereignty, and the fact that the States are the contract makers of the U.S. Constitution. The 17th Amendment plays a big part in what has damaged the dynamics of our system, and why we are now so susceptible to treaties that can subvert the U.S. Constitution. . .

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, 1785

Politicians routinely suggest that providing transfer payments (AKA welfare) to those they deem in need of handouts will help them be better positioned to move up the societal status ladder. The common thinking amongst D.C. politicians is that the more government spends to combat poverty, the less poverty there will be. The data says otherwise.

According to a recent report from the Associated Press, “The ranks of America’s poor are on track to climb to levels unseen in nearly half a century, erasing gains from the war on poverty in the 1960s amid a weak economy and fraying government safety net.” And this is climbing as the government spends more than it ever has to fight the “War on Poverty.”

The “War on Poverty,” started by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, has only resulted in a ballooning of government spending at every level of government. Recent reports are indicating that there is little to show for this gargantuan amount of taxpayer dollars being transferred to those below the poverty line as the poverty rate ticks up to the highest levels seen since the 1960’s. And contrary to the suggestion of all the politicians that state that welfare provides those below the poverty line with upward mobility, very little success can be seen.

A recent report from Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute shows just how much money U.S. taxpayers have spent combating poverty: “Since President Lyndon B. Johnson first declared a “war on poverty” in 1964, federal, state and local governments have spent roughly $15 trillion fighting poverty. In constant dollars, federal spending on welfare and anti-poverty programs has jumped from $178 billion to $668 billion over the past 47 years — a 375 percent increase in constant 2011 dollars. Total welfare spending — including state and local funds — has increased from $256 billion to $908 billion, a 355 percent increase.”

The federal government operates 126 programs aimed at tackling poverty in the hopes that people will improve their situation with a little help from the government. Instead of poverty being eradicated as bloviating politicians routinely insist will happen if just a few more programs are better funded, more people are taking government benefits than ever before.

But the worst part of the ballooning welfare state is that politicians encourage its expansion. The transfer payments are a way for politicians to purchase support. Offering “better” and “expanded” programs that have no real target to wean people off the benefits should be called out for what they are—political office insurance.

If you don’t believe these programs are designed for people to eventually get off of them and truly move up the economic scale, then ask yourself why more people are on these programs than ever before? Ask yourself why there are 126 federal programs on top of various state and local programs? Do you really believe people are that impoverished in the richest country on Earth?

The “War on Poverty” has become a way for politicians to be seen as combating a problem that many people feel is one of the worst problems on Earth. Unfortunately, instead of helping the problem, politicians with lofty promises are sinking the country further in debt while making more Americans dependant on their every government action.

Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com. You can follow him on Twitter at @AdamBitely.

According to one political commentator, a California ballot measure seeking to curb unions won't have the same results as Wisconsin.

Proposition 32, said to be aimed at banning both "corporate and union contributions to candidates," has qualified for the November state ballot. Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio explains that the measure would ban unions from using automatic payroll deductions from members without their consent, and it would end donations to candidates and committees.

"This may be a good step in the right direction," says Gibbs. "It may be a good step in limiting some of the political control that unions and some of your larger corporations are trying to put over our political system."

Purdue student and Young America’s Foundation Intern Scholar Hillary Cherry provides her thoughts on the Colorado shooting, stressing the importance of protecting our Second Amendment rights:

A masked gunman opened fire yesterday on one of the 3,700 midnight showings of The Dark Knight Rises, leaving 12 dead, 50 injured, and one in custody. Liberals everywhere are wasting no time to use this massacre in an effort to push gun control and gut the Second Amendment.

Mayor Bloomberg asks the Obama administration for stricter gun laws following Colorado shooting. Comedian DL Hughley tweeted, “Aurora is 13yrs and 13 miles from Columbine! Since the 60s over 500,000 ppl have bn killed by guns in the US we have no right 2 b shocked!”

How will stricter gun laws bring an end to criminals having guns, when the laws against murder have not been able to stop them from killing innocent people?

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

The United States Constitution is the agreement between the States to create a federal government. The document was written as a result of four months of debates in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787 by delegates from twelve of the original thirteen States. The Constitution was an agreement between the States to form a federal government for the purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union of States. A constitution existed before the U.S. Constitution, and it was called the Articles of Confederation. The government under the Articles of Confederation, however, was too weak to protect the union of states, so the founders met in May of 1787 to fix the Articles of Confederation, and if necessary, form a whole new government with the writing of a new constitution.

At that convention it was apparent to the delegates that the new government, and the Constitution they were about to write, had to be unique, like the new United States of America. They knew that the United States was exceptional, meaning that this country is different from all of the others around the world. However, America was exceptional long before the United States became a nation. The conditions through which the American Colonies emerged contributed to the exceptional nature of the United States of America.

Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831 and 1832 recognized the exceptional nature of the United States, but was astonished by America when he visited the States because among the elites in Europe there was an anti-American sentiment that was sometimes also believed by members of the general populace. Word had it that the United States was a horrible place steeped in poverty, and a government unable to properly function because it represented the people. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States, however, the truth turned out to be very different from the criticisms of America by the political ruling classes of Europe.

Sigmund Freud said, “America is a great mistake.” Alexis Tocqueville discovered that not only was America not a mistake, but it was something very special. America was an exceptional nation.

Clearly, American Culture is different from any other culture in the world. As revealed in our founding documents, and the example provided by the everyday lives of Americans, we are a culture that holds dear our individual rights, and liberty, while keeping a watchful eye on a potentially intrusive government.

The early history of America set the tone for our exceptionalism. Historically, America was diverse, rugged, and a land of individual opportunity. For this, the United States was blessed with an incredible influx of immigrants who came to this nation desiring the opportunity to participate in the freedom, and exceptionalism, that America had to offer.

The United States also made its share of mistakes, but rather than sink into despair, this country rose above those dark points in history, correcting the nation’s course, and becoming greater because of those momentary storms of history. The strengths of our civil society has been different because we have achieved our prosperity through self-governance, where the local governments handle the local issues, and the centralized federal government is tasked only with the complexities of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union.

We cherish our personal freedom, and as a result, the community better benefits.

To understand the Character of Americanism that led to the principles contained on the pages of the United States Constitution, it is important to understand why the British Colonies emerged in the manner that they did. King James watched the rise, and the decline, of the Spanish Empire, and learned that empires in the New World can be expensive. So, armed with this knowledge, Great Britain did not approach the New World as conquerors like the Spanish. Instead, the colonization of America by the English became an investment opportunity for private companies, as well as an opportunity for a new start for families. Riches were available in the New World, and with the hard work of individual investors, the hope of becoming a wealthy property owner awaited those willing to take the chance. King James offered charters. The success of the colonies would also mean a new revenue source for the British monarchy. Failure would result in a financial loss for the investors, not The Crown. At that point the entrepreneurial spirit of America was born.

In 1607 the first English colonists arrived at Jamestown. As I mentioned before, the English colonization of North America was very different from that of the Spanish. The lessons of military conquest, and the financial expenses of empire, convinced the English monarchy to use different tact when colonizing the Atlantic Coast. Rather than conquer, adventurers were encouraged to invest in the New World. English colonists cultivated tobacco, and other crops, for wealth. They produced crop surpluses for export to the Old World, making the English colonies profitable in a potentially unlimited manner.

Taking gold and silver from the New World could only work as long as more gold and silver remained. Spain’s cost to maintain the empire, however, left the Spanish with less remaining as far as profit went. King James I did not wish to create yet another high risk, and expensive, system of colonization, so England’s colonization of the New World on the outskirts of Spain’s New World empire (where Spain could not defend the lands she claimed to rule) was encouraged by a system of investment by various companies with ambitions to reap riches, while benefiting England both overseas and at home.

English colonists were not soldiers filled with the desire of conquest and gold, but families filled with the desire of a new start, property ownership, and riches through farming and trade.

Jamestown, however, failed to yield a profit for the Virginia Company, so after two decades of struggling to survive, the royal government took over operations.

The colonists endured Indian attacks, disease, and starvation with little assistance from the homeland. Bickering among themselves left the colonists with unplanted crops, and shrinking food supplies. In 1607 the local Indians began to bring corn to the colony for barter, which assisted in feeding the colonists, and stocking the Indians with Old World goods they desired. However, the corn was not enough, and in 1610 only 60 of the previous 500 settlers remained alive. These early struggles, however, had an important impact on the English colonies that the Spanish never encountered. The struggles, with limited help from England, instilled a spirit of survival, self-reliance, and independence into the English colonists. From the very beginning the virtues of hard work, and personal responsibility, were important for the sake of survival. Without these characteristics, which were taught to the colonists through their struggles, the English colonies would never have survived. The promised riches of the New World had not materialized at that point, however, but only because a cash crop had not emerged as had been hoped for.

Tobacco, and later cotton, became those cash crops, which became growing industries that attracted droves of English indentured servants to work in the fields.

Colonizing by offering charters had paid off. The English colonies were prospering, and they did so with little interference from the English government. The colonies were self-sufficient, yet England was profiting from the burgeoning farming industries. The only thing holding back the promise of increasing profit to ever higher possibilities was the lack of labor. English arrivals were limited in numbers, and the indentured servants, after seven years of service, were striking out on their own. The southern colonies needed a new work force that was less expensive, not likely to strike out on their own, and capable of increasing in number quickly. The labor-intensive nature of the tobacco crop opened up the eventuality of slave labor.

The charter system was a large part in creating the American virtue of self-reliance. In the southern colonies the promise of riches through property ownership and cash crops encouraged more Englishmen to arrive seeking their fortune. To the north, however, new colonies were being established with a different goal in mind. North of the Chesapeake region, colonies were emerging based on the desire for religious freedom.

The Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620 is the tale we are most familiar with. The Pilgrims were separatists. Though the Pilgrims’ roots were with the Puritan Church, they endeavored to separate themselves from the Puritan Church, as well as British mainstream society.

These early northern colonies were theocracies, but the strong hold by the Church splintered as more and more colonists moved into the frontier. New strains of Protestantism emerged in the frontier lands to the west of the colonies, and the Puritan Church’s influence lessened with each new settlement to the west. In the colonies the Puritan churches divided and subdivided as well. The Christian founding of these settlements is undeniable, but neither is the diversity of the religious beliefs of the early colonists.

Quakers flocked to Pennsylvania where William Penn was determined to live in peace with the Indians, and all other religious denominations. Penn’s first principle of government was that every settler “enjoy the free expression of his or her faith and exercise of worship towards God.” Pennsylvania tolerated all Protestant sects, as well as Roman Catholics. The government did not compel settlers to attend church services (as in Massachusetts), or pay taxes to maintain a state-supported church (as in Virginia). Pennsylvania was the first of the northern colonies to practice true religious freedom, aside from Rhode Island which had begun to advocate freedom of religion when Roger Williams had been banished by the Puritans in the early 1630s.

The colonies, from the beginning, were separate, self-sufficient, independent entities. Each colony had its own unique culture, its own religion, and even its own political system. The individual colonies were like siblings that fought against each other constantly, while coming to each other’s aid when they felt it was necessary. The American Revolution taught the newly independent states that if they were to survive, they would need to continue to function as a union. It took uniting together as a single force to defeat the British, and it would take being united as a country to survive as a nation.

More than 200 years have passed since the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Founding Fathers of the fledgling United States of America provided the framework for the creation of the U.S. Government, and debated for four months over what authorities the federal government should be granted. The central government was designed to protect, preserve, and promote the new union of sovereign states, while being limited in its authorities in order to preserve the basic rights of the individual states, and the American people. The previous constitution, The Articles of Confederation, was too weak, granting the United States Government with virtually no powers, and was unable to field an armed force to put down Shays’ Rebellion in 1786. The new federal government needed to be a stronger system than the old confederation.

With the monarchy gone, the form of government that would protect state sovereignty, while protecting the union, became a matter of debate. Many forms of government were examined, and ultimately the framers decided upon a Republic. They had already tried a Confederation, and the United States Government under the Articles of Confederation had proven to be too weak under such a system. A Unitary government was out of the question, for the “Top down from a single ruling point” style of government was too much like the monarchy the United States had just won their independence from. A pure democracy was a dangerous thing as well. A democracy was just not stable enough, and it was believed that if the people were left to their own devices, the democracy would deteriorate into “mob rule,” and would ultimately become so unstable that an oligarchy would take over the government. History had proven time and time again that democracies destroy themselves, and become tyrannies after the system breaks down.

The U.S. Constitution was a product of heavy debate, compromise, and serious research of past republican forms of government. Anticipating the intensity of the debates, and the constant changes of mind by the participants, the convention was held in secret, with the doors and windows closed, so as not to concern the people about their quarreling leaders.

What emerged from the intense debates during the Constitutional Convention was a republic that uses democratic processes to elect the members of the representative government. The new federal government was a far more complex form of government than had been provided by the Articles of Confederation. To protect against the excess of democracy a system of limits, checks, and balances was devised. Three branches of government were established, and even the power of the vote was divided as to diminish power in any one location. The House of Representatives were voted in by the voting public. The Senators of the U.S. Senate were appointed by the state legislatures. An electoral college was devised so that the President would be indirectly voted into office. The members of the judiciary were to be appointed.

The U.S. Constitution became the law of the land.

The first words of the Constitution is We The People. The Constitution was written for We The People, to protect our rights, to protect our freedoms, to protect our union of States.

The Preamble is the introduction of the U.S. Constitution. The opening paragraph of the founding document holds no legal authority. The Preamble serves to establish who is granting the authority to create a new federal government, and the reasons for the decision. We The People of the United States are the granters. In other words, the States, which were the embodiment of the people, were creating the federal government, and granting authorities to it so that it may function in a manner necessary to protect, promote, and preserve the union of States. The concept became known as federalism.

The most important reason for the formation of the federal government, the main purpose for the creation of the U.S. Constitution, was “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” A union already existed under the Articles of Confederation. A confederation, however, is a weak form of government, and proved to be too weak to protect the union. Therefore, the founders realized that they needed to form a more perfect union, one with more authorities, while still remaining fairly limited in its power and scope. The federal government was created for the sake of the union.

The union, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, was fragile. The States, as colonies, or as states shortly after the American Revolution, never got along too well. They had their own cultures, religions, and laws. They fought over turf, commerce, and anything else you could think of. The States were much like siblings, fighting over everything under the sun; but when it came down to brass tacks, they were united when it came to defending each other.

The bickering between the States created an atmosphere that placed the cohesion of the union at risk. Therefore, when it came to creating a more perfect union, it was understood that one of the tasks of the federal government would have to be to ensure the States got along, too.

Sometimes, when I ask somebody what they believe to be the main reason for the writing of the U.S. Constitution, more often than not the response is, “To protect our rights, liberty, and property.” Though protecting our rights, liberty, and property are among the reasons that the Constitution was written in the manner that it was, those are not the reasons for the creation of the founding document, and thus not the reasons for the creation of the federal government.

As indicated in the Preamble, the primary reason for the Constitution is The Union. However, by creating a federal government, the Founding Fathers realized that they were opening up the potential for the governmental system to become a tyranny. Therefore, in order to protect the rights, liberty and property of the people (more specifically to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”), the federal government needed to be limited in its authorities by the rule of law. The law of the land in which the governmental system is limited to, in the case of the United States, is the U.S. Constitution.

When studying the language used in Article I, Section 1, the original intent by the Founding Fathers in regards to legislative powers becomes apparent.

The first word in the first section of Article I is the word “all.” The fascinating thing about the word “all” is that it means, as shocking as it may seem, “all.”

The following words are “legislative powers.” Legislative powers are the ability to make law, modify law, repeal law, and anything else that has to do with affecting law.

The next word is “herein,” which strangely enough means “here in,” as in “here in this constitution.”

The word “granted” follows “herein.” “Granted” is defined as “to give,” or “to allow,” or more specifically “to legally transfer.” If powers are granted, then there must be a “grantor,” as well. As we learned in our discussion regarding The Preamble, the “grantor” in this case is the States.

“Shall be” is definitive. In other words, the word “shall” does not mean “ought to,” or “maybe.” “Shall” means that “it is,” or “it will be.”

“Vested” is much like “granted.” Vested is a legal transfer of something, or in this case, an allowance to have legislative powers at the federal level.

The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government, and this clause indicates that not only will the Congress be granted all legislative powers given to the federal government, but that the branch of government consists of two houses; a Senate and House of Representatives.

So let’s review. All legislative powers, according to this clause, are granted to the Congress by the States for the purpose of making law, modifying law, or repealing law. The powers are herein granted, which means that the laws must fall within the authorities granted by the text of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, laws made must remain consistent with the “powers herein granted.”

When one considers this clause, it becomes clear that when members of the judiciary legislates from the bench, or the President issues an executive order to modify a law, such action is unconstitutional. After all, “all legislative powers” were granted to the Congress, not to the judicial branch, or the Executive branch.

Since all legislative powers belong to the Congress, it would also then be reasonable to consider any regulations by federal departments that are not in line with laws made by the Congress that are in line with the authorities granted by the Constitution to be unconstitutional as well. Once again, all legislative powers belong to the Congress, therefore any “legislative actions” by regulatory agencies are not in line with the original intent.

Once again, we must be reminded of who gave the federal government those powers herein the Constitution in the first place? Those powers that the federal government has were “granted” by someone. The authorities the federal government enjoys were granted by the States. “We The People of the United States” granted those powers to the federal government. Therefore, if the federal government acts in a manner that is not consistent with the contract between the States and the U.S. Government, the States have the option to ignore those unconstitutional actions by the federal government. This action of ignoring unconstitutional law is the States’ way of being the final arbiters of the Constitution. The term for this kind of action by a State is “nullification.”

The Constitution was designed to protect the union of states, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

...

Fair Use

~FAIR USE~ Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

However, if you still believe your copyright has been violated, we accept notifications of alleged copyright violations in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Note that if you materially misrepresent a claim of copyright infringement you will be liable for damages (including costsand attorney fees). We require the following information in order to respond to your request: Describe in detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon (for example, “The copyrighted work is the code that appearson http://www.example.com/thecode.html") Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted work listed in #1. Include relevant URL’s that will allow us to identify the work. Your address, telephone number,and email address. Include the following statement “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Include thefollowing statement “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.” Sign the notification, type your full name, sign it electronicallyif submitted via email. Send the notification to douglasvgibbs@yahoo.com. Please place in the subject line Political Pistachio Copyright Infringement.

You can also Email me to bitch and complain if you so desire, as well. In the event that you are offended by my site please advise me of the offensive material by Email, and I will promptly print the Email, and then place it in my shredder to serve as kindling for my fireplace.